Meh. The Tea Party brought some guns to rallies but nobody fired them.
I see this sentiment often. Can you point out exactly under which law you will imprison them for twenty years? Feel free to cite the language in that law that applies.
Before I quote fraud and theft statutes, are you very convinced that it’s not a crime to intentionally: a) make a loan to someone you reasonably know can’t repay it on the terms you present and b) intend to foreclose on them at the beginning of the negotiation? Keep in mind that behavior can infer intent. The banking system went wild with this crime when it was deregulated on a theory it would own the property after collecting the mortgage payments for 6mos-3 years and therefore they would profit. They were wrong, as it turns out.
I’m taking your challenge to cite seriously. Do you really propose this is not a crime, or would you like to confess that in fact this is illegal?
I am not aware of any law like that. Was the contract made under duress? And exactly how do you intend to prove this contention? Remember - you intend to put them in prison. Thus - you need to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
As I said, I am not aware of any law that would say that making a loan contract with someone who voluntarily, under no duress, signs it is a crime. Can you point me to such a law and its language that makes it a crime?
A few times I loaned money to people and I knew I had very little chance to see the money back. Is there a law under which I am a criminal?
As a followup - I looked around for various news articles about attempted prosecutions of bankers/mortgage issuers. Lots of articles about such criminal investigations fizzling out because the prosecutors just couldn’t find fraud they could actually, you know, prosecute.
I saw a few prosecutions of low-level mortgage brokers for forging documents - but you can’t seriously tell me that forging was the big problem and that you think “1,000” of bankers were doing it.
And no, AFAIK, not one agency is investigating the “they intended to foreclose, that’s why they gave the mortgages” angle. I would think it’s because it looks suspiciously like a conspiracy theory of the “the US government is behind 9/11” variety.
So you did not read about robo-signing?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/07/18/national/main20080533.shtml And they are still doing it, while fully aware that it is illegal.
As I said, forging documents. Prosecutable, but good luck finding “1,000” bankers or getting anywhere close to “20 years in prison” sentences.
True, but hey, it cuts out the middleman. 
Seems our conservatives are in the "get off my lawn’ groups. Not even your lawn , since it is far away. Get off somebody else’s lawn. I may travel there someday, and I want to sit on that park bench. vacate it, I have my rights.
You may be hurting, but I have my right to ignore that. My rights triumph yours every time.
No, you could always assemble on private property, it being private property and all. The freedom to assemble was designed for the ability to publicly assemble.
And, BTW, this judge agrees. The police cannot tell the protestors they can’t camp there.
Here’s a specific banking fraud statute. It carries a million dollar fine and not more than 30 years in prison.
It’s 18 U.S.C. Chapter 47 Section 1005
Quite mistaken. What this judge did was issue a temprary restraining order while the protestors seek an injunction in their favor. A TRO is not a judgment on the merits, and it’s ex parte meaning no-one else made an appearance to argue the other side of it. The judge agreed with preserving the status quo until a decision on the merits can be reached.
That’s a far cry from stating this judge agrees that the police cannot order them to move.
You know, I did ask for specific language that applies.
The only thing I see there are two things. One is making false entries in any book, report or statement etc. That is, lying in an official financial document. The other is issuing mortgages with intention to defraud.
Is it your contention that the “1,000” bankers that you want put away for 20 years each made false entries in their books? Or issued mortgages with intention to defraud?
By the way, upon closer reading, this law does not seem to apply to regular private banks that are insured by FDIC. The phrasing is a bit convoluted so maybe I’m wrong. But even if it does apply - see question above.
Gonzo, at least as far as I am concerned, someone asked what the controlling supreme court decision was for this matter. I gave the case and discussed what it meant. yes, the controlling case says they can’t camp if camping is otherwise prohibited.
This doesn’t mean that I favor the Supreme Court’s ruling, nor does it make me some meanie conservative who wants people out of parks I will never visit. I stated the legal premises, it’s not my own opinion.
if you wanna put me in a group because of my statements, then please put me in a group such as “someone capable of answering legal questions.” When I quote the Supreme Court, I’m not discussing my own political ideologies, get it?
Yes, they could be prosecuted under this statute for fraudulent mortgages.
Your “lack of prosecution so that proves there were no crimes argument is incredibly weak,” btw. It is well known American Prosecutors will not prosecute perjuries either, and part of their reasoning is that perjury is so widespread and prevalent they can’t deal with it, and there aren’t any prosecutions for it.
“Whoever, being an officer, director, agent or employee of any Federal Reserve bank, member bank, depository institution holding company, national bank, insured bank, branch or agency of a foreign bank, or organization operating under section 25 or section 25(a) [1] of the Federal Reserve Act,”
Of course that covers the banks in question, to a great degree, if not completely.
I do not have any serious claim to exact numbers such as 1,000. I am in no postion to know exactly how many are guilty, but it’s a bunch, and if we prosecute a bunch, it will be a significant deterent. it should be done.
And there are a lot of other statutes not dealing specifically with banks that many could be prosecuted under.
Of course. But you would have to show that the mortgage was fraudulent - that is, false statements were made in it, from the banker’s side, with intent to defraud. Good luck doing that.
“other than an insured bank (as defined in section 656), the accounts of which are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or by the National Credit Union Administration Board”. Which uncovers the banks in question, to a great degree.
Because you KNOW there were thousands of fraudulent mortgages, right?
Please cite.
But not LIVING there. What is so hard to understand about that? seriously. You can’t understand the difference between a few minutes on a soap box and OCCUPYING a public location and rendering useless to others?
Look you’ve taken the position that it’s not illegal, so my demand that people be prosecuted is bogus, but now you’re wanting to shift to evidence when you’re PROVED WRONG, on the basis of evidence that you have no clue about.
Problem is, this language is not in the statute. Given this evidence that you don’t understand statutes, I am pretty sure that you don’t have a clue what acceptable evidence of this crime is either.
Yep, if I can rely on the news. It was this thing called the “bursting of the housing bubble,” and it involved tens or hundreds of thousands of mortgages.
QUOTE=Terr;14466510]Please cite.
[/QUOTE]
Play dumb all you like, as if you’re unaware that genarlly fraud and theft are illegal. I already played your game of citing a specific banking fraud statute, and you shifted gears from claiming it wasn’t illegal to claiming I’d need good luck with the evidence. I cited one statute which proves my statement true, I feel no further compulsion to produce more.
Huh? Where did I take the position that writing fraudulent contract documents is not illegal? Can you point to the particular post?
The language I gave you in quotes is directly from the statute. Read it again.
It had very little to do with issuing fraudulent mortgages.
Of course they are. But if I write a contract document loaning you more money than you can afford to repay, that’s neither fraud nor theft. So how is that “genarlly” relevant?